npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al

Mayflower District Court

#npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al

This is the start of #npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al channel.

clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 01:15 a.m.

New Case

npz_v v. Mayflower Senate et al

Case Type

Civil

clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:12 p.m.

clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 01:15 a.m.

Channel Permissions Synced

Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Judge bommes.

profile used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 01:15 a.m.

Case Modified

@profile

has added @mantisshrimp69 to the case channel.

profile 2025-11-19 01:15 a.m.

Presiding Honorable Judge, @bommes

bommes used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 05:48 a.m.

Case Modified

@bommes

has added @Anakin to the case channel.

bommes 2025-11-19 05:48 a.m.

Would the defendant like to respond to this motion?

bommes 2025-11-19 05:48 a.m.

It is your right, after all

Anakin 2025-11-19 06:23 a.m.

I can pay him I just didn’t know this case ended, last I spoke to the Solicitor General in regards to this he was going to fight it and not settle - then we agreed to settle and I received no further updates from the SG in regards of how to make the payment and when(edited)

Anakin 2025-11-19 06:23 a.m.

@bommes

bommes 2025-11-19 08:25 a.m.

Right

Anakin

I can pay him I just didn’t know this case ended, last I spoke to the Solicitor General in regards to this he was going to fight it and not settle - then we agreed to settle and I ...(edited)

bommes 2025-11-19 08:26 a.m.

But are you contesting anything in this document? If not I’m going to enforce it in favour of the plaintiff as uncontested

Anakin 2025-11-19 08:34 a.m.

The document outlines that I disagreed over making payment in November, the last conversation I had in regards to this topic was on October 7th with the solicitor general Actxrz

Anakin 2025-11-19 08:35 a.m.

I was unaware that the payment was still necessary to be sent

Anakin 2025-11-19 08:35 a.m.

Could you please add my attorney @singhski

bommes 2025-11-19 10:14 a.m.

Of course

bommes used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 10:14 a.m.

Case Modified

@bommes

has added @singhski to the case channel.

bommes

Of course

Anakin 2025-11-19 11:25 a.m.

Could you also add @actxrz

Anakin

The document outlines that I disagreed over making payment in November, the last conversation I had in regards to this topic was on October 7th with the solicitor general Actxrz

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:54 a.m.

@bommes

whenever in my motion I refer as though I’ve been speaking with Defendant anakint0ast

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:54 a.m.

What I mean is that I am speaking with his lawyer and representative actxrz

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:55 a.m.

Who makes decisions on his behalf

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:55 a.m.

The distinction is non-existent

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:57 a.m.

However if it is true that actxrz acted as anakin’s attorney and settled a claim, and additionally manufactured a contractual dispute about the settlement’s merits, without his client ever knowing anything about it, that would be a serious instance of ethical misconduct which this court should promptly forward to the state bar

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:58 a.m.

And in such a case I would be open to discussing whether the contract is void or enforceable. However we’d need to make sure there actually was ethical misconduct on actxrz’ part first, and then I could research what to do

bommes 2025-11-19 02:18 p.m.

I do agree it is imperative that we hear actxrz on their account

bommes used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 02:18 p.m.

Case Modified

@bommes

has added @actxrz to the case channel.

bommes 2025-11-19 02:52 p.m.

@actxrz

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:34 p.m.

@bommes

respectfully and if I may

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:34 p.m.

I think the proper course of action here would be to forward actxrz’s alleged actions to the bar, not as a finding of guilt but as a request that they themselves investigate this conduct

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:35 p.m.

It is not the role of the court to find whether a previous attorney to the defense misconducted himself, in this case, since that’s not material to the dispute

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:38 p.m.

Meanwhile we should address the motion, and if the defense wants to raise an ethical misconduct issue, the court can determine whether it took place, but by the defense showing that it happened, not by the previous defense counsel being able to effectively “stand trial” of these ethical misconduct allegations here instead of before the state bar

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:39 p.m.

Essentially what I am saying is that actxrz is not a party to this case at all and there is no judicial interest in having him defend himself of an allegation that should be forwarded to the bar for them to investigate

bommes 2025-11-19 04:50 p.m.

I’d like to hear from him and upon his statement I will decide how to proceed

bommes

I’d like to hear from him and upon his statement I will decide how to proceed

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:54 p.m.

My point is we should hear from the defense not from the previous disowned defense

actxrz 2025-11-19 05:58 p.m.

HELP

actxrz 2025-11-19 05:58 p.m.

let's maintain decorum please, npz

actxrz 2025-11-19 05:59 p.m.

this is a courtroom.. let's keep our tantrums under control

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:00 p.m.

@bommes

your honor, i have an ap world test tmr on the "gunpowder states" and god knows what else. ill respond tonight, if not, i will respond tomorrow afternoon

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:01 p.m.

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:02 p.m.

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:03 p.m.

idk if they have the word "ok" in iran or where ever he's from

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:03 p.m.

previous discussions are not of importance

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:22 p.m.

they r acc. we were talking abt the settlement

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:24 p.m.

@bommes

this is what I’m talking about

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:24 p.m.

Counsel is defending himself

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:24 p.m.

That’s not what he’s supposed to do here

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:25 p.m.

There’s an allegation of misconduct so the bar should be the one to investigate and adjudicate, there is no reason for the court to get involved unless the actual defense raises the issue to demerit the contract, in which case actxrz still wouldn’t get to defend himself because it wouldn’t be a disciplinary thing

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:25 p.m.

This is a civil action between me and the senate not a disciplinary hearing of actxrz

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:25 p.m.

I ask he be removed

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.

still representing the state bud

actxrz

let's maintain decorum please, npz

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.

Also your honor I’d request, even if you allow act to stay, that you ask him not to make these comments or direct himself to me

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.

js representing anakin

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.

in his individual capacity

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.

per his request

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:27 p.m.

simmer down

mantisshrimp69

Counsel is defending himself

actxrz 2025-11-19 06:31 p.m.

idk what you want me to do man. in iran ik they conform to authority in the snap of the ayatollah's fingers but here we don't do that. you are alleging me of violating the mayflower state bar's rules of professional conduct, i will respond whether you like it or not. and nobody cares if you want to hear it, the judge does. :/

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 08:03 p.m.

Though with hopes of not turning this into a ping pong debate, I feel it’s necessary to explain that the appropriate location for actxrz to defend himself in the face of ethical misconduct allegations is the state bar. This court should have no interest in adjudicating whether actxrz acted wrongly except if raised by the defense to disprove some sort of contractual framework

actxrz 2025-11-19 08:54 p.m.

l'etat, c'est moi

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 09:38 p.m.

https://tenor.com/view/cat-kitty-pussycat-feline-gif-26001328

bommes 2025-11-20 07:02 a.m.

Well I’m just trying to find out the how and what, and seeing as there appears to be a miscommunication here I want to see if this requires bar referral

bommes

Well I’m just trying to find out the how and what, and seeing as there appears to be a miscommunication here I want to see if this requires bar referral

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-20 11:50 a.m.

The court determining whether a miscommunication took place or not is completely fine so long as it’s to the extent of verifying the validity and enforceability of the contract

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-20 11:50 a.m.

However, when it comes to disciplining mr actxrz the court isn’t the appropriate entity here to determine what happened and whether there was misconduct, and to that end whether actxrz should be disciplined

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-20 11:51 a.m.

Given an allegation that, if true, would constitute ethical misconduct, was made, the court needs to refer it to the bar automatically, it holds no interest in verifying what happened for itself

Anakin 2025-11-21 12:23 p.m.

if i may your honor, acxtrz did nothing of the sort and we had agreed previously he would handle all matters and make the payment on my behalf - i apologize for the perhaps poor wording in my previous statement, i was confused as to why i had been summoned and thought this case to be finished.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-21 12:48 p.m.

okay so the contract is fully valid and enforceable

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-21 12:48 p.m.

that's wonderful to hear

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-21 12:49 p.m.

@bommes

since there was no ethical misconduct and the contract is valid can we set a deadline for the defense's response

bommes 2025-11-22 05:31 p.m.

@singhski

since youre counsel of record for the defense: i'll give you two days

bommes 2025-11-22 05:31 p.m.

to file a response

bommes used

/timer

clerkFlow Bot2025-11-22 05:31 p.m.

Timer

Monday, November 24, 2025 at 5:31 p.m.

(2 months ago)

Singhski 2025-11-24 01:33 p.m.

@bommes

May you please extend this by one more day?

Singhski 2025-11-24 01:33 p.m.

It appears this is more interesting than I originally anticipated

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:34 p.m.

@bommes

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:34 p.m.

I'd be against that

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:34 p.m.

they've had a total of 5 days

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:34 p.m.

for a response

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:34 p.m.

in fact, I informed act I'd be filing this action a whopping EIGHT DAYS before actually filing it so in total he had 13 days of anticipation

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:35 p.m.

if they're only now at the stage of assessing the "interestingness" of this case, that's their fault

Singhski 2025-11-24 01:41 p.m.

@bommes

Exhibits incomplete + this Court didn't send scheduling information, which is customary

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.

exhibits are 100% complete, but if they weren't, that's not an issue of timing, they're the ones that forfeited the privilege to contest because of their extreme lack of diligence

Singhski 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/Sle/d/1pRClmCwQJyDYPDvL7tdcs7Q6jffpjYiS/view?usp=sharing

Singhski 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.

Open it

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.

also the court did send scheduling information stipulating a deadline that's in 4 hours

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.

and they're going to miss it

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.

that's their fault, they had time to prepare and they're only now assessing whether the case is interesting in the first place

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.

they literally had 13 days

Singhski

Open it

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:45 p.m.

I would love to

Singhski 2025-11-24 04:18 p.m.

@bommes

YH,

Singhski 2025-11-24 04:20 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QAJE59KzKOdNq1Md3n2jTxjyiLEt0H2K/view?usp=sharing

Singhski 2025-11-24 04:25 p.m.

TLDR; Once a case is dismissed with prejudice, Npz must file a separate civil action under state law to enforce the settlement, and the court cannot compel performance or retain jurisdiction over the dismissed claims.

bommes 2025-11-24 04:58 p.m.

Right. So I’ve skimmed the document you provided and I am convinced by your arguments counsel.

A dismissal with prejudice is indeed final and bars any revival or attempt to bring the case, part or whole, back to court.

However, one thing puzzles me. Does this not in fact count as a separate case? Or do you mean that the plaintiff is seeking the wrong remedy/tort relief in this instance?

@singhski

bommes

Right. So I’ve skimmed the document you provided and I am convinced by your arguments counsel. A dismissal with prejudice is indeed final and bars any revival or attempt to bring...

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:00 p.m.

YH, as you know, for this to be a separate case, he must've filed a seperate civil complaint or petition.

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:01 p.m.

Perhaps Chief Judge Wellesley erred in prematurely dismissing the case, but that simply isn't something you should concern yourself with

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:01 p.m.

And the fundamental prerequisite for filing a motion, e.g a motion to compel is essentially the existence of a pending case or action in which the party has a legal interest and standing.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:02 p.m.

@bommes

mantisshrimp69

@bommes

bommes 2025-11-24 05:02 p.m.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:02 p.m.

your honor respectfully

bommes 2025-11-24 05:03 p.m.

……yes?

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:03 p.m.

one sec

Singhski

And the fundamental prerequisite for filing a motion, e.g a motion to compel is essentially the existence of a pending case or action in which the party has a legal interest and ...

bommes 2025-11-24 05:04 p.m.

And you’re arguing that, because this case is seeking to bring back a matter that was essentially dismissed with prejudice, he lacks standing. Correct?

bommes

And you’re arguing that, because this case is seeking to bring back a matter that was essentially dismissed with prejudice, he lacks standing. Correct?

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:04 p.m.

Yes, it should also be noted that Npz can obtain the same relief by filing a civil complaint.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:05 p.m.

Your honor judicial rulings are to be interpreted, like statutes, in the context wherein they were issued, and not given tag-like hypertechnical interpretations such as the one the court is seemingly hoping to adopt

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:05 p.m.

5 M.S.C. 1 § 3102.3 (“Any individual who fails to perform a contractual obligation, as agreed, without
lawful excuse, and causes harm to the other party, shall be liable for breach of contract and shall
be liable for punitive damages up to one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) dollars.”)

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:05 p.m.

Your honor if I may

mantisshrimp69

Your honor judicial rulings are to be interpreted, like statutes, in the context wherein they were issued, and not given tag-like hypertechnical interpretations such as the one the...

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:05 p.m.

How is this hypertechnical? It is as easy as saying

case dismissed with prejudice, no motion can arise from that same case?

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

this is the context wherein the dismissal order was entered

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

the judge entered it knowing that the court could, still, enforce the contract

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

Scroll down

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

there's nothing else below this

mantisshrimp69

the judge entered it knowing that the court could, still, enforce the contract

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

via civil action

bommes 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

Alright one at a time. Please

Singhski

via civil action

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

nope

bommes 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

go ahead with what you wanted to say unless you already said it

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

your honor I agreed specifically with the judge, and it says in the contract, that the contract itself can be enforced BOTH

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

Through a civil action

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.

which yes, I may very well pursue

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.

AND by virtue of the court's directive in that same case

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.

the case remains open to that extent and was only dismissed with prejudice as to other technicalities

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.

the court retains the right to enforce judgment

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.

the judge kept this in mind and that's what he wanted when he dismissed

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.

it's what we all agreed on

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.

the contract says it and the judge did too

mantisshrimp69

this is the context wherein the dismissal order was entered

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.

We will also be filing a Motion for Sanctions against Npz_v for misleading this Court in such a shameful manner.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:08 p.m.

like I said, there's nothing else below that

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:08 p.m.

unless you see something of importance there?

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:08 p.m.

"Clerk directed to close case", let us see how the clerk did so

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:08 p.m.

uhm what

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.

I still dont get what youre

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.

what your point is

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.

@bommes

How do you suppose a motion can be entertained after this case was duly dismissed with prejudice on the 21st of October 2025?

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.

File a civil complaint, stop going around procedure

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.

@bommes

I thought it was my turn to talk

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.

You can obtain the same relief by filing a civil complaint + the fundamental prerequisite for filing a motion, e.g a motion to compel is essentially the existence of a pending case or action in which the party has a legal interest and standing. Next.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.

wtf bro

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.

dude its my turn to talk

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.

Why was this not dismissed sua sponte? I wonder.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.

https://tenor.com/view/dog-sunset-javgag-gif-6354990519690233079

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.

your honor IF I MAY

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.

Singhski

Why was this not dismissed sua sponte? I wonder.

bommes 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.

Okay I’ll answer that after npz has shared his thoughts

bommes 2025-11-24 05:11 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

you have the floor

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:11 p.m.

thank you

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:11 p.m.

judicial rulings have to be interpreted in the context wherein they were issued

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:11 p.m.

everybody knows that I think I need no elaboration

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.

but you can see e.g. this case https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/399/415/546068/ for example

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.

now

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.

the court did enter a dismissal with prejudice, technically, yes

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.

but that's just a technical term, a category

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.

it does not actually necessarily signify that no motions can be raised, when the very court and the parties agreed that it could

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.

for this you can see the settlement agreement

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.

it reads

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.

@bommes

If I may

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.

its my turn

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.

you interjected enough

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.

"The Court in the aforementioned civil action shall retain jurisdiction over the same case with the purpose of enforcing this Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement not be complied with by any Party, the Court shall have authority to resolve it at law or at equity, or through the vehicle of civil contempt of court."

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.

this is in section V technicalities

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.

defendant anakintoast agreed to this

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.

the court verbatim retains jurisdiction over this case, DESPITE the only-nominal "dismissal with prejudice"

mantisshrimp69

"The Court in the aforementioned civil action shall retain jurisdiction over the same case with the purpose of enforcing this Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement not ...

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.

It still retains jurisdiction if you file a complaint. Next.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.

to enforce payment

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.

@bommes

can you remove him from the case chat

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.

ill wait and then ill continue

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.

cus this is impossible

mantisshrimp69

but you can see e.g. this case https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/399/415/546068/ for example

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:15 p.m.

Cool, so, that's just not what this says, and I hope you aren't banking on HH not reading this LOL

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:15 p.m.

Please see this case

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:15 p.m.

1. it is what it says
2. why r u still talking

bommes 2025-11-24 05:15 p.m.

@singhski

Counsel. What part of “you have the floor (npz)” fell on deaf ears?

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:16 p.m.

Well he's just took a shit all over the floor

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:16 p.m.

Nasty one at that

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:16 p.m.

@bommes

I move for sanctions

bommes 2025-11-24 05:16 p.m.

That’s enough. I’m this close to ordering you to show cause. This is your first and only warning.

bommes 2025-11-24 05:17 p.m.

Anything more out of you unwarranted and I’m holding you in contempt.(edited)

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:17 p.m.

thank you

bommes 2025-11-24 05:17 p.m.

Continue

Singhski

It still retains jurisdiction if you file a complaint. Next.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:17 p.m.

since we're already at it Ill address this

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:18 p.m.

"The Court in the aforementioned civil action shall retain jurisdiction over the same case

with the purpose of enforcing this Agreement

. Should any provision of this Agreement not be complied with by any Party, the Court shall have authority to resolve it at law or at equity, or through the vehicle of civil contempt of court."

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:18 p.m.

that says very clearly

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:18 p.m.

the court RETAINS JURISDICTION, in THIS same case, to ENFORCE

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:19 p.m.

there is also a provision in the agreement that says defendant is liable if he breaches the contract repeatedly. yes. But that is only one of the measures we agreed on. We agreed that the court could compel payment in this same case, as it very often does in several cases, should the defendant not abide

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:19 p.m.

the fact it's dismissed with prejudice doesn't override this

mantisshrimp69

but you can see e.g. this case https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/399/415/546068/ for example

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:20 p.m.

and if, really, there is any doubt to the fact that judicial rulings are owed deference and in-depth interpretation, keeping the context of the reality in mind, which I doubt there is, I will be happy to provide a case that ISN'T off the top of my head like this one

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:20 p.m.

i admit this case might not have been the best example. I dont have too much time to research this rn to send it here but it's something I know for a fact

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:20 p.m.

I will if I need to

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:21 p.m.

do I need to @bommes

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:22 p.m.

Id like to say something else also

mantisshrimp69

do I need to @bommes

bommes 2025-11-24 05:22 p.m.

It’s your case, honestly I’m not about to reinterpret dismissal with prejudice so I’ll have to read up on the old case if that’s still somewhere

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:22 p.m.

it's in

User

Message could not be loaded.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:23 p.m.

but I have something else to say

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:23 p.m.

The reason why people cannot file motions after a case is dismissed with prejudice is because that case is deemed to have been adjudicated finally

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:23 p.m.

basically it's res judicata or whatever other latin term

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:23 p.m.

right

bommes 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.

sorry to cut you short but I can’t give you the floor for all eternity

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.

it's the same reason why you can't keep going in a case after the judge and jury decides you're guilty

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.

just 1 min

bommes 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.

alright

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.

BUT

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.

the thing is

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.

courts can, and do, (in mayflower) retain jurisdiction even after a case was ended and a final order is entered

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.

to make sure that payment is executed

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.

I can cite you 50 cases if you give me 10 mins where this happens

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:25 p.m.

courts constantly ensure that a defendant pays if he's liable, and they use civil contempt to this end

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:25 p.m.

The case is res judicata. a final order is entered. and yet they have jurisdiction over making sure that payment is followed through

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:25 p.m.

the issues of law, fact, are all finalized—all that remains is making the payment, and courts retain the right to enforce that

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:25 p.m.

the same happened here

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:26 p.m.

the court simply retained the right to enforce payment, the difference is that judge kezzera wanted to archive/delete the case chat bc he likes to have a clean docket, but it's the same exact thing

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:26 p.m.

that's all

mantisshrimp69

the court simply retained the right to enforce payment, the difference is that judge kezzera wanted to archive/delete the case chat bc he likes to have a clean docket, but it's the...

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:26 p.m.

bc he believed that the defendants not making payment is very unlikely

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:26 p.m.

and if i did need to ask the court to enforce i could just reopen

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:26 p.m.

that's all

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:27 p.m.

I thank the court very much for lending me their time, I ask it doesnt render a decision for a while since I need to get back to studying asap and I can't respond to the (Im assuming) incoming rebuttal from the defense immediately(edited)

Singhski

We will also be filing a Motion for Sanctions against Npz_v for misleading this Court in such a shameful manner.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:28 p.m.

And if this motion is entertained (e.g. thru OSC) pls make a separate channel for me to talk abt this there thanks

mantisshrimp69

"The Court in the aforementioned civil action shall retain jurisdiction over the same case with the purpose of enforcing this Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreemen...

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:33 p.m.

@bommes

is it alright if I just go ahead

bommes 2025-11-24 05:36 p.m.

okay yea I’m giving the floor to Singh now

bommes 2025-11-24 05:37 p.m.

@singhski

go ahead

bommes

okay yea I’m giving the floor to Singh now

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:38 p.m.

Do you think courts are bound to exercise jurisdiction indefinitely by your contract? Wellesley clearly disagrees because he dismissed your action with prejudice. Any action surviving is incompatible with the doctrine of res judicata. Simply stating it in the contract cannot override a court’s discretion over it's jurisdiction. The clause says the court can resolve breaches:

"…at law or at equity, or through the vehicle of civil contempt of court.”

Yes, "[t]he Court...shall retain jurisdiction over the same case..." but it certainly doesn't have to. And it hasn't. If the court declines to exercise jurisdiction, or if the agreement was not made part of a court order, Npz_v can still file a separate civil action for breach of contract.

Lex non cogit ad impossibilia

, the law does not compel what is impossible, and a contract forcing the Court to retain it's jurisdiction, even when it absolutely can't, compels the impossible. Now that the methods listed in the clause are not legally feasible, the only practical alternative is for Npz to pursue civil action.(edited)

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:39 p.m.

oops my chatpgt prompt showed up there

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:39 p.m.

LOL

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:42 p.m.

This is the rational chain of reasoning:

Albert dismissed the action with prejudice -> By law, that bars the same claim or any claim that could have been brought in the same case, i.e res judicata -> NPZ’s argument that the court “retains jurisdiction forever” contradicts this. -> npz seeks to force the court to act through this contract, when it certainly doesn't have to, -> the law can't compel what is impossible, and dismissal with prejudice has made these proceedings an impossibility, -> and while Npz can’t resurrect the old case, he can file a separate civil action to enforce the contract

Singhski 2025-11-24 05:44 p.m.

@bommes

that's pretty much how simple it is imo, if you have any questions, shoot

bommes 2025-11-24 05:46 p.m.

I actually don’t. A dismissal with prejudice is just that. What it does is clear and I do not see how plaintiff’s rights would be impeded if this matter is dismissed sua sponte

bommes 2025-11-24 05:47 p.m.

You’ve presented him two possible avenues to take instead. I do not wish to create precedent that dismissal with prejudice can somehow be circumvented

bommes 2025-11-24 05:47 p.m.

That would undermine the very essence of it

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:47 p.m.

Cn we have a hearing

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:47 p.m.

For another day

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:47 p.m.

We can go criss cross and we can get into it better

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:48 p.m.

Cus from the perspective of the judge having dismissed with prejudice but NOT wanting to enforce payment is inconsistent with his remarks and comments

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:49 p.m.

And further courts constantly have jurisdiction even after res judicata status of a case to resolve enforcement of payment

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:49 p.m.

For example look at gamerboy v richo, the case was dismissed with prejudice and the court enforced that the plaintiffs had to pay attorney’s fees AFTER the case was dismissed

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:49 p.m.

Etc

bommes 2025-11-24 05:51 p.m.

I do not believe a hearing is needed. I am going to rule in like with the Chief Judge and uphold the dismissal with prejudice in this particular matter. You’re given avenues to seek the relief you require and I deem it is best to follow either of those paths.

You are welcome to petition the Supreme Court if you believe this to be erroneous.

bommes 2025-11-24 05:51 p.m.

in line*

bommes 2025-11-24 05:52 p.m.

Official ruling (paperless) will be out tomorrow

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:54 p.m.

Okay so can I ask a question

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:55 p.m.

I mean I just dont think this applies cus

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:55 p.m.

Res judicata is in place yes the merits are decided and so is the law, it’s barred from being re-heard

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:55 p.m.

But it’s not being re-heard, we’re just asking for damages that we’re entitled to in the same case

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:55 p.m.

In accordance with the final order

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:57 p.m.

Imagine a world where a final order means the court can’t do anything about the case any longer. Once the judge bangs the gavel and says “the defendant is liable”, nothing would happen. The defendant wouldn’t pay. Because the court wouldn’t have jurisdiction to give him civil contempt or to enforce any kind of payment. But that’s not how we do it

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:58 p.m.

A final order, whether that be a dismissal or a late-stage adjudication, is a final order as to the merits and the law of the case. But the court absolutely has jurisdiction to make sure that the final order is followed

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:59 p.m.

Imagine a court enters a permanent injunction at the end of a case. Since the case ended, can the court not give contempt to the defendant if he violates that injunction because “there’s no jurisdiction due to res judicata”? Res judicata does not mean that the final order can’t be enforced

mantisshrimp69

Imagine a world where a final order means the court can’t do anything about the case any longer. Once the judge bangs the gavel and says “the defendant is liable”, nothing would ha...

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:01 p.m.

It is customary dismissal with prejudice be entered after the plaintiff has certified that the defendant has complied in full

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:02 p.m.

For whatever reason, that didn’t happen, and your only recourse at this point is to file a separate civil action.

Singhski

It is customary dismissal with prejudice be entered after the plaintiff has certified that the defendant has complied in full

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:02 p.m.

Customary ≠ necessary or mandatory

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:03 p.m.

“Dismissed with prejudice” is just a label, you need to pair it with the context and meaning of that label

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:03 p.m.

Dismissal with prejudice indicates that the last ruling is final.(edited)

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:04 p.m.

But I think we ought to put this to rest unless HH has any other questions.

Singhski

Dismissal with prejudice indicates that the last ruling is final.(edited)

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:04 p.m.

That’s because irl a final order does not need to be enforced. Payment is made extrajudicially through garnering wages, repossessing assets, services etc

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:04 p.m.

Here we don’t have that so the court bears the responsibility of doing that

mantisshrimp69

Customary ≠ necessary or mandatory

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:05 p.m.

I don’t see why this Court should stray away from that practice. Would be a repudiation of the essence of the common law.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:06 p.m.

The court already strayed away from that practice when it dismissed WHILE wanting to enforce. Interpreting it as what you want it to be after the fact doesn’t change what it is

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:07 p.m.

Not really, the Court still retains its ability to enforce because you are completely free to file a separate action.

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:08 p.m.

I don’t see why this Court should make up jurisdiction in order to correct the premature dismissal in the old case

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:08 p.m.

The court retains its ability to enforce in this action. That’s what the parties agreed to, the court accepted, and a dismissal with prejudice doesn’t contradict that, especially when the judge said to open the case again if the defendant didn’t comply

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:08 p.m.

This is a matter of fictional jurisdiction

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:09 p.m.

Npz, if it were that simple, you wouldn’t be arguing this here. You would be making different arguments in the old channel before the Chief Judge.

Singhski

I don’t see why this Court should make up jurisdiction in order to correct the premature dismissal in the old case

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:09 p.m.

Jurisdiction already exists even though a mistake was (in your eyes, not mine) made. The court “correcting” it because it disagrees, without following through, is what’s wrong

Singhski

Npz, if it were that simple, you wouldn’t be arguing this here. You would be making different arguments in the old channel before the Chief Judge.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:10 p.m.

Old channel was closed because the judge thought the possibilities that the defendant wouldn’t pay, and that I’d have to ask for the court to compel, were slim. He wanted a clean docket. It’s nothing more than that, check the transcript

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:10 p.m.

Clearly, Albert has employed his discretion in this way to preclude other forms of enforcing the decision in favor of you filing a separate action.

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:11 p.m.

That is not what happened

Singhski 2025-11-24 06:11 p.m.

At least that is what the Court has effectively done

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:12 p.m.

Just because it looks like there’s no jurisdiction at a glance doesn’t mean there isn’t

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:12 p.m.

The judge closed it with that express purpose, this is reflected in the transcript

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:12 p.m.

Furthermore the dismissal with prejudice could entirely be credited to the fact that an archived case needs to be categorized and in choosing one they put with prejudice

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:13 p.m.

But this is more complex than mere categorization

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:13 p.m.

It’s dismissed with prejudice but the court retains jurisdiction to enforce. That’s literally not self-contradictory at all

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:13 p.m.

And it happens all the time

Singhski 2025-11-28 06:09 a.m.

@bommes

When can we expect the ruling?

bommes 2025-11-28 06:14 a.m.

WEEKEND

bommes 2025-11-28 06:14 a.m.

caps

bommes 2025-11-28 06:15 a.m.

@singhski

mantisshrimp69

Furthermore the dismissal with prejudice could entirely be credited to the fact that an archived case needs to be categorized and in choosing one they put with prejudice

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-28 02:15 p.m.

@bommes

bommes 2025-11-29 09:33 a.m.

@mantisshrimp69

@singhski

are you okay with a paperless ruling e.g. a ruling only published in rulings

bommes

@mantisshrimp69

@singhski are you okay with a paperless ruling e.g. a ruling only published in rulings

Singhski 2025-11-29 09:33 a.m.

yeah that’s fine

judicialFLOW Bot2025-11-29 11:14 a.m.

(edited)

Appearance Request

Requester: @mantisshrimp69
Party: me
Channel: npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al

A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below.

Status

Approved by @bommes

Approve

Deny

judicialFLOW Bot2025-11-29 11:14 a.m.

@mantisshrimp69

appears for me (approved by @bommes).

judicialFLOW pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:12 p.m.

bommes 2025-11-29 11:15 a.m.

@mantisshrimp69

what about you

bommes

@mantisshrimp69

@singhski are you okay with a paperless ruling e.g. a ruling only published in rulings

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:20 a.m.

So long as it’s sufficient

bommes 2025-11-29 11:22 a.m.

i'll take that as a yes

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:22 a.m.

If it’s sufficient yes

bommes 2025-11-29 11:25 a.m.

@singhski

@mantisshrimp69

ruling is out, sorry if I threw a curveball during that semi-structured hearing earlier but I dove deeper into the matter at hand to ensure I had all the facts and information present

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:26 a.m.

Thank you your honor I appreciate it

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:26 a.m.

Now that jurisdiction is established can we delve into the merits?

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:27 a.m.

The issue at the moment is contractual interpretation, I’d love to have a hearing (just so that we don’t end up arguing in a ping-pong fashion in the case chat like earlier)(edited)

bommes 2025-11-29 11:29 a.m.

We'll have to find a time to do this in-game since they don't like us using discord...

well if that bs chat filter age doohickey ends up being implemented i refuse to do court in-game(edited)

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:29 a.m.

I mean that’s assuming the defense takes the same stance they took privately with me

bommes

We'll have to find a time to do this in-game since they don't like us using discord... well if that bs chat filter age doohickey ends up being implemented i refuse to do court in-...(edited)

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:29 a.m.

Who’s they

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:29 a.m.

Anyways yeah I was thinking in game

mantisshrimp69

Who’s they

bommes 2025-11-29 11:30 a.m.

higher ups mainly, they probably just want the game to have some sort of use for the judicial team and i can't blame them

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:30 a.m.

My only issue is

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:30 a.m.

The judge seat in the district court is too far away from the rest

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:30 a.m.

You can’t see what the judge says and the judge can’t conversely see what the litigants say

bommes 2025-11-29 11:31 a.m.

we could also try the courthouse in mersea

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:31 a.m.

It seems like a nothingburger but honestly it is like #1 annoying thing ever it’s impossible to do anything

bommes

we could also try the courthouse in mersea

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:31 a.m.

Yes or scom

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:31 a.m.

Mersea is probably better

mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:32 a.m.

Now that I’m done with my exams for the most part I’m available after 10 am till 11 pm utc-3, there may be exceptions tho

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-01 12:38 p.m.

(edited)

Appearance Request

Requester: @mantisshrimp69
Party: me
Channel: npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al

A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below.

Status

Request expired.

Approve

Deny

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-01 04:24 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

appears for me (approved by @bommes).

judicialFLOW pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:12 p.m.

bommes 2025-12-01 04:24 p.m.

weren’t you already in the channel? what happened @mantisshrimp69

bommes

weren’t you already in the channel? what happened @mantisshrimp69

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:25 p.m.

a certain justice keeps giving me a role that hinders my ability to speak in the server without moderation approval because he is mad at me or something

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:25 p.m.

so I have to rejoin each time which in turn takes away my perms here

bommes 2025-12-01 04:25 p.m.

that’s a bold accusation to make

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:25 p.m.

yes well it's true unfortunately

bommes 2025-12-01 04:25 p.m.

unfortunately for you I have no way to verify

bommes 2025-12-01 04:26 p.m.

anyhow, I hope it doesn’t happen too often :/ both for you and the court

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:26 p.m.

I hope that too

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:26 p.m.

can we set a deadline for the defense to respond to the motion (assuming they want to)? a hearing is only necessary if they actually have an argument to make against my motion, once they send their response

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:26 p.m.

2 days is standard

bommes 2025-12-01 04:41 p.m.

hold on, which motion? the one to compel payment right

bommes 2025-12-01 04:42 p.m.

since they’re the government technically, they get 5 days

bommes 2025-12-01 04:42 p.m.

actually screw “technically” they quite literally are

bommes 2025-12-01 04:42 p.m.

Oh wait that’s only if the solicitor general is representing mb

bommes 2025-12-01 04:43 p.m.

@singhski

you’ll get 3 days from me to respond to the plaintiff’s motion to compel payment, if no response is made after that I’ll consider it uncontested

bommes used

/timer

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-01 04:43 p.m.

Timer

Thursday, December 4, 2025 at 4:43 p.m.

(2 months ago)

bommes

since they’re the government technically, they get 5 days

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:44 p.m.

what rule is tht

bommes 2025-12-01 04:45 p.m.

uhh

bommes 2025-12-01 04:45 p.m.

I don’t have the rule book handy but it’s in the rules of civil procedure

bommes 2025-12-01 04:45 p.m.

lemme find

mantisshrimp69

what rule is tht

bommes 2025-12-01 04:46 p.m.

Mayfl. R. Civ. P 13(a)

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:47 p.m.

13(a) says individuals get 5 days and government gets 7

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:47 p.m.

but that's for civil complaints and defenses/answers to the civil complaint

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:47 p.m.

not for motions

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:47 p.m.

standard practice for motions is 48hrs for a response

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:47 p.m.

see e.g. mayf. d. ct. 3(8)

bommes 2025-12-01 04:48 p.m.

it also states stuff about counterclaims, unless that just means they sue you for something else in turn which would make your take correct

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.

a counterclaim is when a plaintiff makes a legal claim against you, and the defendant in turn makes a legal claim against the defendant

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.

but that's still early (pretrial) civil procedure, not what we have here

bommes 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.

right

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.

this is just a motion

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.

arguably, still

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.

I filed this motion like ages ago

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.

imo they should get only 1 day

mantisshrimp69

I filed this motion like ages ago

bommes 2025-12-01 04:50 p.m.

you did, but then we had the whole yes dismissal no dismissal back and forth which I had to settle

bommes 2025-12-01 04:50 p.m.

so I don’t think they’ve been tardy

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:51 p.m.

yeah but the ruling was out a couple days ago, and besides, ive warned them that id file this motion for 8 days before actually filing it (since i was banned)

bommes 2025-12-01 04:51 p.m.

tell you what, I’m rolling it back to 48 hours per the standard

bommes 2025-12-01 04:51 p.m.

we’ll take it from there

bommes used

/timer

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-01 04:52 p.m.

Timer

Wednesday, December 3, 2025 at 4:52 p.m.

(2 months ago)

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:52 p.m.

BotclerkFlow

Click to see command.

bommes 2025-12-01 04:52 p.m.

cc: @singhski

bommes 2025-12-01 04:52 p.m.

new deadline for responding to the plaintiff’s motion to compel payment (see case card for details), take note please(edited)

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-01 07:44 p.m.

(edited)

Appearance Request

Requester: @mantisshrimp69
Party: me
Channel: npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al

A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below.

Status

Request expired.

Approve

Deny

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-02 02:04 a.m.

@mantisshrimp69

appears for me (approved by @bommes).

judicialFLOW pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:12 p.m.

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-03 07:53 p.m.

(edited)

Appearance Request

Requester: @mantisshrimp69
Party: me
Channel: npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al

A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below.

Status

Request expired.

Approve

Deny

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-04 12:44 a.m.

@mantisshrimp69

appears for me (approved by @bommes).

judicialFLOW pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:12 p.m.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:58 a.m.

hi @bommes

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:58 a.m.

the 48 hours passed 17 hours ago

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:58 a.m.

no response to the motion so can you rule

bommes 2025-12-04 10:31 a.m.

yeah I’ll rule as is, his right to a response is considered to be waived

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 11:59 a.m.

@bommes

bommes 2025-12-07 12:14 p.m.

yes sorry

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 01:50 p.m.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:14 p.m.

@bommes

Don't forget your honor

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:14 p.m.

he owes an additional $5k every day that passes

bommes 2025-12-09 01:47 a.m.

My delay does not become his burden

bommes

My delay does not become his burden

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 10:26 a.m.

It does

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 10:27 a.m.

Because every day that passes that he doesn’t pay me and instead waits for a court case to finish counts as his fault according to the contract

bommes 2025-12-09 12:26 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

@singhski

ruling published

bommes 2025-12-09 12:27 p.m.

upon this payment being satisfied and proof of this being provided, this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice

bommes 2025-12-09 12:27 p.m.

once and for all(edited)

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:33 p.m.

@bommes

"As a result of the court's tardiness in relation to a ruling, any late fees as a result of this delay are waived, calculated by the number of days the ruling was delayed multiplied by the agreed upon late-fee."

bommes 2025-12-09 12:33 p.m.

correct

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:33 p.m.

so the court is waiving my money on my behalf?

bommes 2025-12-09 12:33 p.m.

the court is saying that any delay in ruling is not the fault of the defendant

bommes 2025-12-09 12:33 p.m.

in regards to late fees

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:34 p.m.

it's not a delay in the ruling

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:34 p.m.

it's his refusal to pay

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:34 p.m.

you're looking at this as if though you're responsible because you were tardy

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:35 p.m.

but in reality whether or not you were tardy the reason we're here in the first place is because defendant refuses to pay

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:35 p.m.

every day that he refuses to pay, including days your ruling is pending, is his fault and he needs to pay accordingly

bommes 2025-12-09 12:35 p.m.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:35 p.m.

imagine this as if it's

bommes 2025-12-09 12:35 p.m.

how many days are we talking

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:36 p.m.

imagine as if it's pre judgment interest, but contractual instead of by statute

bommes

how many days are we talking

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:36 p.m.

uhh

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:36 p.m.

nov 8 he refused

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:36 p.m.

so that's

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:36 p.m.

30 days

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:37 p.m.

assuming he pays today
otherwise each day he doesn't it's another 5k

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:37 p.m.

175+30x5

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:37 p.m.

325k

bommes 2025-12-09 12:38 p.m.

jesus christ

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:39 p.m.

well said

mantisshrimp69

every day that he refuses to pay, including days your ruling is pending, is his fault and he needs to pay accordingly

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 01:02 p.m.

@bommes

do you agree then

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 10:22 p.m.

@actxrz

can I get my money.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 10:22 p.m.

when can u Hop

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 10:22 p.m.

mantisshrimp69

@bommes do you agree then

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-12 02:10 p.m.

@bommes

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 08:40 a.m.

@bommes

whatever the case I haven’t been paid yet and it’s a day past the 16th

mantisshrimp69

@bommes whatever the case I haven’t been paid yet and it’s a day past the 16th

bommes 2025-12-17 10:46 a.m.

then late fees apply, we're not allowed to hold people indefinitely to force payment unfortunately. However I can have him arrested for contempt and notified through the proper channels.

bommes

then late fees apply, we're not allowed to hold people indefinitely to force payment unfortunately. However I can have him arrested for contempt and notified through the proper cha...

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 03:51 p.m.

Can you issue consecutive arrest warrants

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 03:51 p.m.

Ur allowed to do that

bommes 2025-12-17 03:56 p.m.

I don’t see why not

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.

@bommes

hello ur honor

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.

honor honoripedai

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.

im leaving clark to become an alabama farmer

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.

i forgive defendant for all his debts he is pardoned under the Law

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.

@actxrz

bless you child

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:45 p.m.

you are forgiven

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:45 p.m.

or some siht

bommes 2025-12-19 05:58 a.m.

Well then

bommes 2025-12-19 05:58 a.m.

Then I guess this contract is now null and void

bommes 2025-12-19 05:58 a.m.

@profile

you can archive this

krm used

/transcript

clerkFlow Bot2026-01-18 11:16 a.m.

Creating transcript..

clerkFlow Bot2026-01-18 11:16 a.m.

https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1462480835948187689 Successfully created transcript.

clerkFlow Bot2026-01-18 11:16 a.m.

Channel Permissions Synced

Permissions have been synced to Volume XV.

Exported 418 messages